Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SourceForge Open-Sources Their Platform Software

Posted by timothy on from the recursive-open-source dept.

rick446 writes "In late 2009 SourceForge embarked on a plan to 'reboot' our developer tools on an open platform including Python, MongoDB, RabbitMQ, and SOLR. The result was the Allura platform, and was released under the Apache License in February 2011." Note: Slashdot and SourceForge are both part of Geek.net.

12 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wait a second.... by ivucica · · Score: 4, Informative

    It used to be. Then they closed it. Then last FLOSS version was forked as GForge and others. I guess they're opening it again.

  2. For me, this has been eye opening... by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    ...and here's why.

    All along, I thought sites like www.slashdot.org ran on some open source database like PostgreSQL with a front end created by PHP.

    As the Allura platform shows, it's much more complex than that. The question is...does it have to be this complex?

    What would be the short comings of a PostgreSQL/PHP set-up?

    1. Re:For me, this has been eye opening... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Well, for starters, PHP. *ducks*

      But seriously, the chances are that a lot of the complexity in both site's code bases is that it's doing some very interesting and valuable stuff. Sometimes, when code seems over-complicated, it's for a bad reason like performance or bad design. But a lot of other times, it's to deal with the strange edge cases that were discovered after the code was running, or really useful behind-the-scenes features like appropriately distributed mirroring.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:For me, this has been eye opening... by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      slashdot is perl with mysql (customized, I believe). The code is (or was) available on openslash.org or someplace like that. Don't search for "open gash", though.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. Re:Advertising? by maxume · · Score: 2

    It's considered good practice to make note of an association like that.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  4. Re:So... by jemmyw · · Score: 2

    You probably wouldn't. SF came first, so when Google Code came out it had to have better features to attract users, and it did. Then GitHub, again had to have better features to attract users, and it did. In my view the main improving feature as you jumped from one to the other was better usability.

  5. Re:Advertising? by LetterRip · · Score: 4, Informative

    Was the note about Geeknet really necessary? Anyone here that actually cares will already know.

    Yes it is called 'full disclosure' - when reporting about a group you have financial ties to you are supposed to disclose that fact.

  6. Re:Wait a second.... by Coeurderoy · · Score: 2

    Then GForge closed up and was reopenned as fusionforge (http://fusionforge.org)

  7. Pure slashvertisement by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pure slashvertisement at its best. Really, it is!

  8. Re:So... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2

    Used to be you couldn't use a BSD license on Google Code, but that's apparently changed. My only remaining complaint is that there isn't a good way for me to take a project on Google Code (e.g. "dastoob") and assign a domain to it. I've got dastoob.net set up right now to 301 redirect to the relevant Google Code page.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  9. History of OpenSourcing SF.net by markramm · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at SourceForge, and can probably describe a bit of the history.

    In 1999 when Sourceforge was released, it was conceived as a gift back to the open source community, and was released as open source software. But with the dot com crash, and the successive transformation of VA linux from a hardware company to a software company (VA Software) the then management decided to try out a proprietary software sales strategy, and created SourceForge Enterprise Edition.

    While things were proprietary due to that decision, much of the sf.net internal code became very tied up in the specifics of our infrastructure, and in some cases with code that we weren't able to open up.

    All of this happened before I came on with SourceForge, and my experience is of a very different company, that has been continually increasing our commitment to give back to open source, and have released a number of smaller projects. And then a year ago we started this new Python based platform, which was intended from day one to be released under an open source license.

    Trust me, we know that previous management actions have burned some bridges, but still feel like our obligation today is to do what's right for the site and the community. And I am convinced that the open source community deserves a truly open forge platform, where they can see the code, influence feature decisions, and even self host if that were to become necessary. And I know the current team is very committed to making that happen.

    1. Re:History of OpenSourcing SF.net by sphix42 · · Score: 2

      You forgot to mention that when SF decided to close source their application they took the source code as-is and stole all the work open source developers like myself had contributed to the project. I had started contributing heavily just before they took the source and called it theirs with no reimbursement or acknowledgment to developers like me.

      For me SF has no credibility.